corporate governance highlights 2018 · 2019-03-06 · corporate governance highlights 2018 is a...

Strategic Media Partner:A Collaboration Between:

Poising for the Next Phase

of Advancement

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE HIGHLIGHTS 2018

December 2018

Lawrence Loh, Lou Junying,Muhammad Ibrahim, Ace Chiu, Teo Kah Yong

( This page has been intentionally left blank)

CONTENTS

List of Figures

List of Tables

About CPA Australia

About NUS Business School - CGIO

About SID

About This Report

Preface

Summary of Findings

Introduction

Methodology

Scope of Study

The SGTI Framework

Scoring Structure for the Base Score of the General Category

Business Trusts and REITs Scoring Framework

General Category Key Highlights

Annual Trend

Performance by Sector

Board Responsibilities

Rights of Shareholders

Engagement of Stakeholders

Accountability and Audit

Disclosure and Transparency

Business Trust and REIT Category Key Highlights

Annual Trend

Performance by Sector

Structure

Leverage

Interested Person Transactions

Competencies of Trust/Trustee Managers

Emoluments

Moving Forward

Annexes

Annex A - General Category Full Ranking Table

Annex B - Business Trust and REIT Category Full Ranking Table

Annex C - Classification of Industry Sectors

Credits

4

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

13

14

15

15

16

16

18

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

56

58

59

4


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The SGTI Framework

Figure 2: Trendline of SGTI Scores (2009 – 2018)

Figure 3: SGTI 2018 Score Distribution

Figure 4: SGTI Trends in 25th, 50th and 75th Percentile (2016 – 2018)

Figure 5: BREAD Performance in SGTI Scores (2017 – 2018)

Figure 6: Average Score by Sector (2016 – 2018)

Figure 7: Board Independence

Figure 8: Board Competencies

Figure 9: Disclosure of AGM Conduct

Figure 10: Shareholder Participation in Approving Remuneration-related Matters

Figure 11: Selected Issues of Stakeholders Engagement

Figure 12: Disclosure on Internal Audit

Figure 13: Audit Committee

Figure 14: Disclosures of IPTs

Figure 15: Other Key Disclosures

Figure 16: Business Trusts and REITs Score Breakdown

Figure 17: Business Trusts and REITs Average Score by Sector

Figure 18: Structure of Business Trusts and REITs

Figure 19: Leverage of Business Trusts and REITs

Figure 20: Interested Person Transactions of Business Trusts and REITs

Figure 21: Competencies of Trust/Trustee Managers of REITs and Business Trusts

Figure 22: Emoluments of Business Trusts and REITs

14

16

16

17

17

19

20

20

21

21

22

23

23

24

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Excluded Companies in General Category

Table 2: Summary of Excluded Companies in Business Trust and REIT Category

Table 3: Five Domains of the Base Score

Table 4: Scoring Structure for the Base Score of the General Category

Table 5: Scoring Metric for Base Score of Business Trust and REIT Category

Table 6: Business Trusts and REITs’ Average Scores by Domain

Table 7: Number of Business Trusts and REITs by Sector

13

13

14

15

15

25

26

5

POISING FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF ADVANCEMENT

ABOUT CPA AUSTRALIAFounded in 1886, CPA Australia is one of the world’s largest professional accounting bodies representing more than 160,000 members working in 125 countries around the world. CPA Australia advances its members’ interests through education and knowledge exchange, the development of professional networks, advocacy in relation to policy, standards and regulation and the promotion of value of CPA Australia members to employers, government, regulators and the public. The world-renowned CPA designation is synonymous with professional credibility and international portability. CPA Australia has been operating in Singapore for 64 years, having arrived in this market in 1954 under the auspices of the Colombo Plan.

For more information, please visit cpaaustralia.com.au

6


ABOUT NUS BUSINESS SCHOOL - CGIOThe Centre for Governance, Institutions and Organisations (CGIO) is a leading research institute focused on governance and sustainability issues in Asia. Established by the National University of Singapore (NUS) Business School, we spearhead high-impact research on governance and sustainability issues that are pertinent to Asia to deliver insights that enhance performance in a sustainable manner. Our research areas include corporate governance, corporate sustainability, governance of family firm, government-linked companies and business group. CGIO has served as the key knowledge partner with many distinguished organisations such as the ASEAN CSR Network (ACN), CPA Australia (CPAA), Diversity Action Committee (DAC), Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), Securities Investors Association (Singapore) (SIAS), Singapore Exchange (SGX), Singapore Institute of Directors (SID), and spearheading the construction and publishing of indexes such as the ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard, SIAS Investors’ Choice Awards and Sustainability Reporting amongst other key research projects.

CGIO is the only domestic assessment and ranking body in Singapore that assesses all publicly-listed companies on the Singapore Exchange.

For more information, please visit: bschool.nus.edu.sg/cgio.

7


ABOUT SIDThe Singapore Institute of Directors (SID) is the national association of company directors. SID promotes the professional development of directors and corporate leaders, and provides thought leadership and benchmarking on corporate governance and directorship. It works closely with the authorities and its network of members and professionals, to uphold and enhance the highest standards of corporate governance and ethical conduct.

Formed in 1998, the membership of SID comprises mainly directors and senior leaders from business, government and nonprofits. The affairs of SID are directed by a volunteer Governing Council and managed by a full-time Secretariat.

SID has a comprehensive training curriculum for the different types of directors, including nonprofits, private, listed and international companies. Its courses and workshops cover the spectrum of a director’s developmental journey, from aspiring and new directors to experienced directors and chairs of boards and board committees. SID also provides board appointment services and regular networking events to promote the community of directors.

Members have access to a range of resources, including a quarterly Directors Bulletin, a biennial Board of Directors Survey and Singapore Directorship Report, a comprehensive Corporate Governance Guides for Boards in Singapore, other research publications, and forums and seminars.

To encourage excellence in corporate governance, SID manages the Best ManagedBoard Award, Best CEO Award and Best Investor Relations Awards, which are presented at the annual Singapore Corporate Awards co-organised by the Institute of Singapore Chartered Accountants and The Business Times. SID collaborates with the NUS Centre for Governance, Institutions and Organisations (CGIO) to produce the Singapore rankings for the ASEAN Corporate Governance Scorecard, and together with CGIO and CPA Australia, produces the Singapore Governance and Transparency Index.

For more information, please visit: www.sid.org.sg.

8


ABOUT THIS REPORTCorporate Governance Highlights 2018 is a joint initiative by CPA Australia, the NUS Business School’s Centre for Governance, Institutions and Organisations (CGIO) and the Singapore Institute of Directors (SID). This report is part of an annual series published during the last quarter of every year, following the release of the Singapore Governance and Transparency Index (SGTI) rankings.

This report apprises readers of the progress and continuous development of Singapore-listed companies (SGX Mainboard and Catalist) in their corporate governance practices and disclosures. The SGTI 2018 edition evaluates 589 Singapore-listed companies and 43 Business Trusts and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) that released their 2017 annual reports by 31 May 2018. This report also examines and uses data from the CGIO databases of the Governance and Transparency Index (GTI) from 2009 to 2015 and the SGTI from 2016 to 2018.

9


PREFACEThe Singapore Governance and Transparency Index is conducted by three parties: CPA Australia, the NUS Business School’s Centre for Governance, Institutions and Organisations (CGIO) and the Singapore Institute of Directors (SID). The Index was first released in 2009 and revised in 2016 to become the current version of Singapore Governance and Transparency Index. The index is an indicator of corporate governance practices and disclosures by Singapore-listed companies, Business Trusts and REITs. The index takes a holistic approach by incorporating the G20 / OECD Principles of Corporate Governance in its scoring. Over the years, SGTI has attained credibility as an independent and transparent indicator of Singapore’s corporate governance.

2018 marks the 10th anniversary of the establishment of this index. This report, the seventh issue in the series, informs key findings on Singapore companies’ corporate governance practices and disclosures released by 6 August 2018. The SGTI 2018 results release also coincides with the release of the new Code of Corporate Governance by the Monetary Authority of Singapore. This monumental milestone in Singapore’s corporate governance landscape provides even greater opportunity for companies to adhere to best practices.

We hope that the key findings presented in this report provide meaningful insights into Singapore’s corporate governance aspects so as to highlight strengths and areas for improvement. The release of the new Code of Corporate Governance places even greater responsibility on SGTI to stay relevant by remaining at the forefront of Singapore’s corporate governance evaluation and providing findings to encourage better corporate governance practices among Singapore companies.

10


Summary of FindingsCompanies in the general category continued to exhibit a consistent effort toward corporate governance disclosures in the SGTI 2018 assessment, as evidenced by the all-time high average score of 56.3, a full 4-point increase compared to 2017. Companies improved across all five assessment areas: board responsibilities, rights of shareholders, engagement of stakeholders, accountability and audit, as well as disclosure and transparency. There remains, however, room for further improvement in some areas, like the engagement of stakeholders.

BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES

64.5%companies disclosed

board diversity policies

In this year’s assessment, companies enhanced board process to develop board competencies. More companies disclosed their board diversity policies (64.5%). In addition, 89.0% of companies provided orientation programmes for new directors, an improvement from last year’s 77.1%.

RIGHTS OF SHAREHOLDERSIn terms of shareholders’ rights, companies provided improved disclosures of their conduct at the Annual General Meeting (AGM), as well as shareholders’ participation in approving remuneration related matters. In 2018, more companies disclosed if their CEO / Managing Director / President attended the most recent AGM (39.6%) and voted by poll for all resolutions at AGM (95.8%).

ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERSDespite the improvement in engagement of stakeholders, this assessment area remains the poorest performing area of the BREAD framework, suggesting that companies need to put in more effort to engage their stakeholders. Further, few companies disclosed their efforts to address customers’ health and safety (21.1%) or provided information on health, safety and welfare policies for employees (36.0%).

39.6%companies disclosed if their CEO/Managing Director/President attended the most recent AGM

95.8%voted by poll for all resolutions at AGM

21.1%companies disclosed their efforts to address customers’ health and safety

36.0%provided information on health, safety and welfare policies for employees

11


ACCOUNTABILITY AND AUDITThe standards of internal auditors and composition of auditing committees demonstrated slight improvements over the previous year. More companies reported that their internal auditors met or exceeded the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) standards (48.6%). 66.9% of companies disclosed their heads of internal audit or audit firm, if outsourced. More companies disclosed that they had a fully independent audit committee (65.9%).

DISCLOSURE AND TRANSPARENCYResults indicate that more companies made meaningful disclosures on interested person transactions (IPTs). 59.6% of companies disclosed their policies covering the review and approval of material IPTs, while 51.8% disclosed the nature and value for each material IPT. In addition, more companies disclosed details on their codes of conduct or ethics (17.7%).

PERFORMANCE BY SECTORSRetail and Hospitality among Business Trusts and REITs maintained their strong performance in corporate governance disclosure and practice, with the highest average scores.

TRUST-SPECIFIC ITEMSAmong the trust-specific items, Business Trusts and REITs performed well in providing disclosures on emoluments, such as disclosures of basic fees (93.0%) and basis to determine performance fees (88.4%). More trusts made disclosures about their distribution policies (90.7%).

Despite the overall encouraging results, there is room for improvement in specific Business Trusts and REITs. For example, trusts can provide more disclosures on the rationale or justification for choices of their trust/trustee managers.

59.6%companies disclosed policies

covering the review and approval of material IPTs

65.9%companies disclosed that

they had a fully independent audit committee

Business Trusts and REITs are assessed through a combination of BREAD framework and trust-specific items in the SGTI. Business trusts and REITs scored higher than last year, moving from an average score of 60.4 in 2017 to 74.5 in 2018.

12


INTRODUCTIONCorporate governance is a system and mechanism established within organisations to strengthen accountability and transparency. The past decade has witnessed a gradual shift in corporate governance regulations, from the changes in Singapore Exchange listing rules in 2011 to the revision of the Code of Corporate Governance in 2012, from the amendment of the Singapore Companies Act in 2014 to the current release of the new Code of Corporate Governance by the Monetary Authority of Singapore in 2018. Over the last decade, corporate governance practices within Singapore have witnessed tremendous progress.

Sustainable governance is an important component of the modern business landscape, wherein proactive shareholders demand greater transparency and accountability in the service of company integrity. The SGTI assesses companies based on their corporate governance disclosures and practices, as well as the timeliness, accessibility and transparency of their financial results announcements.

The scope of the SGTI includes the General Category and, new last year, Business Trust and REIT Category. The Business Trust and REIT category was introduced in 2017 to provide greater recognition of the growing importance of these business entities to equity markets.

The holistic nature of the SGTI provides a rigorous assessment of Singapore-listed companies in various industries and business models. Thus far, regulatory bodies like MAS have also utilised SGTI results for further research. The reliability, credibility and scope of the SGTI measures allow the index to stay relevant amidst changes in the corporate governance regulatory landscape.

13


METHODOLOGYSCOPE OF STUDY

SGTI 2018 evaluates 589 Singapore-listed companies in the General Category, as well as 43 Business Trusts and REITs that released their annual reports by 31 May 2018 based on their corporate governance and risk management disclosures. Evaluation is based on information sources ranging from annual reports, websites, announcements on SGXnet and investor relations’ email responsiveness to news articles from such sources as digital news platforms and The Business Times in order to gain a comprehensive understanding of corporate governance practices and disclosures of the evaluated companies. Announcements made on SGXnet and media coverage that occurred between 1 January 2016 and 31 May 2018 have been incorporated to form the updated scores.

Table 1: Summary of Excluded Companies in General Category

The 2018 edition of the SGTI report excludes select Singapore-listed companies and Business Trusts and REITs. Within the General Category, an aggregate of 122 Singapore-listed companies were excluded. These excluded companies constitute newly-listed companies that did not publish a full year’s year-end financial reports (17), companies listed as secondary listings on SGX (28), funds (11), companies suspended from trading (65) and companies that did not release annual reports over the past two financial years (1). A summary of the excluded companies within the General Category is presented comprehensively in Table 1.

Table 2: Summary of Excluded Companies in Business Trust and REIT Category

An additional five Business Trusts and REITs were excluded in SGTI 2018: four newly-listed Business Trusts and REITs and a single secondary listed company. Table 2 provides a summary of the excluded business entities within the Business Trust and REIT Category.

GENERAL CATEGORY (589)

Excluding 122 companies:

17newly listed

28secondary

listings

11funds

65suspended from

trading

1not release report for 2 years

BUSINESS TRUSTS & REITs (43)

Excluding 5 Business Trusts and REITs:

4newly listed

1secondary listing

14


THE SGTI FRAMEWORK

Companies subjected to the SGTI assessment are evaluated based on two broad components: (1) Base Score and (2) Adjustment for Bonuses and Penalties. The sum of bonuses and penalties are subsequently added to Base SGTI scores of the evaluated company to determine a company’s final and overall SGTI score. Ultimately, these scores are aggregated to provide a quantitative representation of the evaluated company’s corporate governance disclosures and practices. This entire holistic process is defined as the SGTI framework.

Table 3: Five Domains of the Base Score

This framework relies on a broad range of assessment items, encompassing all of the requirements outlined by the Code of Corporate Governance, as well as new provisions and recommendations from the G20 / OECD Principles of Corporate Governance.

Important to note is the different scoring systems between the General Category and the Business Trust and REIT Category. Different scoring systems are employed because of the distinct characteristics of the two categories. Hence, the two aforementioned categories cannot be directly compared to each other.

However, both categories share similarities in their scoring systems. For both, the calculation of the Base Score shares a common set of assessment items which encompasses five domains: (1) Board Responsibilities (35 points), (2) Rights of Shareholders (20 points), (3) Engagement of Stakeholders (10 points), (4) Accountability and Audit (10 points) and (5) Disclosure and Transparency (25 points). See Table 3 for a summary.

The “Board Responsibilities” domain includes board independence, board size, CEO-Chairman separation, board competencies, board appraisal, board and directors’ remuneration, board selection and board duties and responsibilities.

The “Rights of Shareholders” domain includes the rights and treatment of shareholders. The domain is also reinforced with additional assessment criteria that covers issues such as the appointment of an independent party for vote validation, the recording of shareholder questions and answers from the Board, management in shareholders’ general meetings, conduct of interested party transactions and dividend payments.

The “Engagement of Stakeholders” domain assesses companies’ accountability to a broader set of stakeholders beyond shareholders. Some key considerations include whistleblowing policies, sustainability reporting and whether or not contracts with stakeholders are defined and upheld.

The “Accountability and Audit” domain considers the power and composition of the audit committee, risk management practices and internal controls of the company. Key metrics include whether the internal auditor of the company meets or exceeds IIA standards and whether the directors within the audit committee have relevant finance and accounting experience.

The final domain, “Disclosure and Transparency,” assesses companies based on disclosures relating to interested person transactions, investor relations and directorships held by directors. This domain also assesses whether the company provides adequate information of their financial reports on the company website and the SGX website.

Base Score

(100 points)

Aggregate of Bonuses/ Penalties

(43 points)

Overall Score

Figure 1: The SGTI Framework






(Max 143 points)

15


SCORING STRUCTURE FOR THE BASE SCORE OF THE GENERAL CATEGORY

Companies can obtain a maximum base score of 100 points based on: (1) Board Responsibilities (35 points), (2) Rights of Shareholders (20 points), (3) Engagement of Stakeholders (10 points), (4) Accountability and Audit (10 points) and (5) Disclosure and Transparency (25 points).

Table 4: Scoring Structure for the Base Score of the General Category

BUSINESS TRUSTS AND REITs SCORING FRAMEWORK

Business Trusts and REITs are assessed based on corporate governance disclosures via both the questions in the SGTI base score (75 points) and trust-specific items (25 points). Trust-specific items (SLICE) include trust structure (4 points), leverage (6 points), interested person transaction (3 points), competency of trust manager (3 points) and emoluments (9 points).

These two sets of questions form the base score (100 points). The final SGTI score for Business Trusts and REITs incorporates both the base score and the adjustments for bonuses and penalties (43 points).

Adjustments for Bonus & Penalty (43 points)

Overall SGTI Score (143 points)

Table 5: Scoring Metric for Base Score of Business Trust and REIT Category






FIVE DOMAINS SCORE

35

20

10

10

25

100TOTAL

Normalised Base Score(75 points)

Trust-specific items (25 points)(S.L.I.C.E)






Structure

Leverage

Interested Person Transactions

Competency of Trust Manager

Emoluments

16


GENERAL CATEGORY KEY HIGHLIGHTSANNUAL TREND

2018 marks the 10th anniversary of the GTI publication and the third of the enhanced SGTI instrument. Overall, SGTI 2018 scores reflect the best average performance to date of 56.3 points. The score constitutes base scores, bonuses and penalties awarded in accordance with corporate governance disclosure performances. The average score for companies in the General Category of 56.3 is an increase of 4.0 points from 2017. Mean scores have consistently improved from 31.5 in 2011. This progress indicates that Singapore-listed companies are making a concerted effort to improve their corporate governance disclosures and practices. Figure 2 depicts the overall SGTI scoring trend since the inception of the GTI in 2009.

In addition, this year witnessed a 13.2% increase in mean bonuses awarded, from 6.8 in 2017 to 7.7 in 2018. Bonuses are awarded when companies demonstrate emerging good practices, like producing an annual sustainability report or comprehensive disclosures on how the company assesses the independence of its directors.

There is, however, an increase in penalties imposed on companies in 2018, with the average penalty increasing from 9.0 in 2017 to 10.2 in 2018. Penalty items reflect issues indicative of poor corporate governance, as they are levied on a company-specific basis, typically triggered by a specific event. Over the years, the distribution of overall SGTI scores has shifted to the right as more companies attain higher scores. Figure 3 shows this shift in SGTI score distribution.

In addition to the overall base score, bonuses and penalty trends, the SGTI 2018 edition has also investigated 25th, 50th and 75th percentile SGTI performances from 2016. Average scores for these three different percentile groups have likewise improved since 2016. Better performing companies ranked at or above the 75th percentile show no

signs of resting on their laurels, as average scores have increased from 60.0 in 2016 to 67.0 in 2018. Companies ranked at the 50th and 25th percentile show the same upward trends, as the average scores for both groups increased a full 4 points. Figure 4 shows the consistent increase of average scores of the 25th, 50th and 75th percentile companies in the SGTI index from 2016 to 2018.

Figure 3: SGTI 2018 Score Distribution

120

40

80

160

-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Company Score

Num

ber

of c

ompa

nies

2016 2017 2018

0

Figure 2: Trendline of SGTI Scores (2009 – 2018)

45

25

20

30

35

40

55

50

60

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015 2016 2017 2018

33.9 33.531.5

34.9

38.0

42.1

47.649.7

52.3

56.3

17


Despite the improvement in overall scores, a deeper look into the five assessment areas of the BREAD framework reveals better performance in some domains over others, including: (1) Board Responsibilities (35 points), (2) Rights of Shareholders (20 points), (4) Accountability and Audit (10 points) and (5) Disclosure and Transparency

(25 points). However, Figure 5 indicates that the third domain (3) Engagement of Stakeholders (10 points) in the BREAD framework has yet to improve performance to a satisfactory level. Although “Engagement of Stakeholders” scores improved from 30% in 2017 to 38% in 2018, there remains much room for improvement.

Figure 4: SGTI Trends in 25th, 50th and 75th Percentile (2016 – 2018)

60

40

35

45

50

55

65

2016 2017 2018

75th Percentile

50th Percentile

25th Percentile

70

37.541

45

51

55

6061

67

48

Figure 5: BREAD Performance in SGTI Scores (2017 – 2018)

Board responsibilities

Rights of shareholders

Engagement of stakeholders

20

0

40

60

80

100

Accountabilityand audit

Disclosure andtransparency

SGTI 2017

SGTI 2018

53% 56% 64% 69% 30% 38% 71% 74% 53% 58%

18


PERFORMANCE BY SECTOR

Following the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), all companies in the general category can be classified into 11 sectors. This year’s results show that almost all sectors continue to improve their corporate governance disclosures. In fact, all sectors, aside from Utilities, recorded all-time high performances.

Among individual sectors, the Financials sector continues to demonstrate the strongest performance in corporate governance disclosure, with an average score of 71.5, an improvement of 6.7% from last year. Telecommunication Services has the greatest average score improvement this year, posting a 21.6% increase and outperforming other sectors to take the second place. Real Estate (62.5) and Consumer Staples (59.1) have the next highest average scores.

Despite the encouraging results, there remains room for improvement for some sectors, like Materials and Utilities. The average SGTI score of the Utilities sector declined by 3.2 points to 47.1 in 2018, replacing the Materials sector as the lowest performing sector this year. The Utilities sector is also the only sector that experienced a decrease in average score. Despite moving out of last place, the Materials sector remained one of the poorest performing sectors, with an average score of 49.7. Companies in these sectors need to invest in revamping their corporate governance practices and disclosures.

19


Financials

Consumer Staples

Real Estate

TelecommunicationServices

Industrials

Energy

Health Care

Utilities

Consumer Discretionary

Information Technology

Materials

SGTI 2016 SGTI 2017 SGTI 2018

65.567.0

71.5

53.555.1

67.0

52.056.5

62.5

54.357.1

59.1

45.152.1

55.8

50.451.4

55.3

47.951.5

55.0

39.749.1

54.2

46.449.2

53.3

54.144.9

49.7

50.0

50.347.1

100 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Figure 6: Average Score by Sector (2016 – 2018)

20


BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES

The SGTI 2018 report reveals that better-performing companies have generally presented strong performances in the area of board responsibility. Key aspects of board responsibility include board independence and board competencies. In fact, the board is highly essential as an oversight body in ensuring the business is run properly.

Figure 8: Board Competencies

Based on the scores in 2018, there are more companies with boards comprising at least 50% of independent directors, increasing from 33% in 2017 to 36.8% in 2018. In addition, the number of companies with independent director as its chairman also increased from 19.6% in 2017 to 22.8% in 2018. Independent directors bring an independent and objective view to the board, hence an improvement in scores indicates better board oversight (see Figure 7).

In 2018, 89% of companies offered orientation programmes for new directors to better equip them with relevant skill sets for their roles well. This is a significant improvement compared to 77.1% in 2017 (see Figure 8).

Another important factor to define board competency is to have a diverse board with different backgrounds, ages, genders and experience represented in order to bring fresh perspectives and ideas onto the table. SGTI 2018 scores indicate that companies are improving in this area, as 64.5% of companies disclosed the board’s diversity policy, a significant improvement from 33.5% in 2017 (see Figure 8). Figure 7: Board Independence

19.6%33.0%

Proportion of independent directors on board more than or equal to 50%

2017

2018

10.0%

0.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Having an independent directoras chairman

36.8% 22.8%100.0%

33.5%77.1%

Having orientation programmes for new directors

2017

2018

10.0%

0.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Having board diversity policy

89.0% 64.5%100.0%

21


RIGHTS OF SHAREHOLDERS

Shareholders, by virtue of their share ownership, are entitled to various rights, including participation in the company’s AGM and timely access to material information about the company. It is vital that listed companies are able to address the key concerns of shareholders.

Figure 9: Disclosure of AGM Conduct

To enable shareholders to have a greater say in company proceedings, AGM provides an appropriate platform for them to raise concerns to the board of directors and vote on important decisions. For this reason, companies make detailed disclosures about their conduct in AGM. In 2018, 39.6% of assessed companies disclosed that their CEO / Managing Director / President attended the most recent AGM, as improvement from 21.3% in 2017. More companies practiced voting by poll for all resolutions at AGM, increasing from 90.4% in 2017 to 95.8% in 2018 (see Figure 9).

For better governance, shareholders should be allowed to vote on important decisions, such as determination of remuneration of directors and key executives. In 2018, 62.3% of companies provided disclosures on shareholders approving non-executive director (NED) remuneration, up from 59.7% in 2017. At the same time, 85.2% of companies disclosed that the remuneration of the executive directors and/or the senior executives were subject to approval of shareholders or the Board, compared to 83.7% in 2017 (see Figure 10).

Figure 10: Shareholder Participation in Approving Remuneration-related Matters

83.7%59.7%

Shareholders approved renumeration for the NEDs

2017

2018

10.0%

0.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Shareholders or Board of Directors approved therenumeration of the Eds and/or senior executives

62.3% 85.2%

90.4%21.3%

Disclosure on CEO/Managing Director/President Attendance at AGM

2017

2018

10.0%

0.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Disclosure on Voting by Poll for All Resolutions at AGM

39.6% 95.8%100.0%

22


ENGAGEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS

It is increasingly important for companies to maintain a healthy stakeholder relationship in order to create a competitive advantage. However, disclosures on the engagement of stakeholders have always been a weak spot for most assessed companies. Even though companies have made improvements in this area, as evidenced in the increased scores compared to last year, the scores remain relatively low and so indicate significant room for improvement.

In 2018, only 21.7% of companies disclosed and provided description on anti-corruption procedures, 21.1% disclosed efforts to address customers’ health and safety, 36.0% provided information on health, safety and welfare policy for its employees and 21.2% provided relevant data on training and development programmes undergone by its employees in its annual report (see Figure 11).

The low rate of stakeholder engagement disclosures will likely not last, as Singapore is already taking action to

recognise and promote the important roles of stakeholders. The Singapore Exchange made sustainability reporting part of its listing rules in 2016, enforceable from the financial year ending on 31 December 2017. The revised Code of Corporate Governance issued by MAS also included a new requirement that companies adopt an inclusive approach to stakeholder engagement.

Figure 11: Selected Issues of Stakeholders Engagement

Customers’ health and safety

Anti-corruptionprocedures

Employee trainingprograms

5%

0%

10%

20%

25%

30%

Employee’s health, safety and welfare

SGTI 2017

SGTI 2018

16.8%21.1%

8.7%21.7%

10.6% 21.2% 24.6% 36.0%

35%

40%

23


ACCOUNTABILITY AND AUDIT

Strict internal controls and accounting measures ensure that a company does not materially conduct fraudulent activity that compromises the integrity of the company. Furthermore, in light of continued operational and cyber development and threats, strong risk management and internal controls are vital to mitigating these threats.

Figure 12: Disclosure on Internal Audit

The standards of companies’ internal auditors have improved, with 48.6% of companies’ internal auditors meeting or exceeding the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) standard in 2018, compared to 39.1% in 2017. Furthermore, to have greater transparency of the internal auditing function, 66.9% of companies either disclosed the head of internal audit or the name of the audit firm if the company’s internal audit function is outsourced, a modest improvement from 64.9% in 2017 (see Figure 12).

The SGTI 2018 also finds a slight improvement in audit committee structure. Among the assessed companies, 65.9% have entirely independent audit committee members, a minor improvement from 61.7% in 2017. 97.6% of companies in 2018 also provided a statement by the board or audit committee on the adequacy of the internal controls and risk management systems compared to 95.7% of companies in 2017 (see Figure 13).

Figure 13: Audit Committee

95.7%61.7%

Had a fully independent auditcommittee

2017

2018

10.0%

0.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Board or audit committee provided statement onthe adequacy of the internal controls and risk management systems

65.9% 97.6%100.0%

64.9%39.1%

Internal auditors met or exceeded IIA standards

2017

2018

10.0%

0.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

Disclosed the head of internal audit or the nameof audit firm if outsourced

48.6% 66.9%

24


DISCLOSURE AND TRANSPARENCY

It is the responsibility of companies to disclose essential information regarding current business practices so that shareholders and stakeholders can make informed decisions about their investments. Active information disclosure helps foster stakeholder confidence in the company.

Disclosure on IPTs are essential to stakeholders due to the sensitive nature of the transaction. Full disclosure of IPTs can help provide a true and fair view of company performance. In 2018, companies demonstrated improved IPT disclosures, as 59.6% of companies disclosed their policies covering the review and approval of material IPTs, while 51.8% of companies disclosed the nature and value for each material IPT (see Figure 14).

Other key disclosures include directorships and chairmanships held by directors at present and over the past 3 years, as well as codes of ethics or conduct. Disclosures of all directorships and chairmanships over the past 3 years improved from 60.7% in 2017 to 76.2% in 2018. On the other hand, codes of ethics or conduct disclosures improved from 12.9% in 2017 to 17.7% in 2018 (see Figure 15).

Figure 14: Disclosures of IPTs

Figure 15: Other Key Disclosures

12.9%60.7%

Disclosure on directorships and chairmanships held by its directors at present and over the past 3 years

10.0%

0.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

Disclosure on code of ethics or conduct

76.2% 17.7%

2017

2018

41.1%30.4%

Disclosure on policy covering review and approval of material/significant IPTs

10.0%

0.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Disclosure on nature and value for each material/significant IPT

59.6% 51.8%

2017

2018

25


BUSINESS TRUST AND REIT CATEGORY KEY HIGHLIGHTSANNUAL TREND

The corporate governance assessment for Business Trusts and REITs entered its second year of publishing since its commencement in 2017. Due to their unique business models, Business Trusts and REITs are subjected to additional guidelines, such as the Code on Collective Investment Schemes to complement the existing SGTI framework. The “SLICE” framework addresses 5 main areas: (1) Structure, (2) Leverage, (3) IPTs, (4) Competency of REIT manager / Trustee-manager and (5) Emoluments. The total score of business trust or REIT consists of a 75% weight for the “BREAD” framework and a 25% weight for the “SLICE” framework, which contains trust-specific items.

Figure 16: Business Trusts and REITs Score Breakdown

50

10

0

20

30

40

60

2017 2018

Overall Score

Bonus Awarded

Penalties Given

70

80

4.4

8.212.1

60.4

74.5

4.3

From 2017 to 2018, Business Trusts and REITs scores increased from 60.4 to 74.5. The bonuses awarded to companies also increased from 8.2 to 12.1, demonstrating remarkable progress in corporate governance disclosures and practices. Another indication of better corporate governance practices is the decline in the number of penalties from 4.4 to 4.3 (see Figure 16).

Business Trusts and REITs continue to lead in Engagement of Stakeholders and Disclosure and Transparency, as in Table 6. This finding is consistent with last year, when Business

Table 6: Business Trusts and REITs’ Average Scores by Domain

Business Trusts and REITs Scores

Trusts and REITs were assessed under the SGTI for the first time. The significant discrepancies in these two domains between the general category and Business Trust and REIT category may be attributable to “the trust effect” that resulted in a stakeholder-centric approach.

However, Business Trusts and REITs did not perform as well as companies in the general category with regards to Rights of Shareholders (Unitholders). Moving forward, Business Trusts and REITs should pay more attention to protecting and promoting unitholder rights.

Average Scores by DomainBoardResponsibilities(35 points)

Rights ofShareholders (Unitholders)(20 points)

Engagement of Stakeholders(10 points)

Accountability and Audit(10 points)

Disclosure and Transparency(25 points)

GeneralCategory 19.7 13.7 3.8 7.4 14.3

Business Trust and REIT Category 21.9 12.3 6.5 7.4 19.5

Score Difference 2.2 -1.4 2.7 0 5.2

Score Difference(% of Max Points) 6.3% -7.0% 27.0% 0.0% 20.8%

26


PERFORMANCE BY SECTOR

All 43 Business Trusts and REITs assessed in 2018 are classified into seven sectors: Healthcare, Hospitality, Industrial, Logistics, Office, Retail and Others. This classification involves grouping Business Trusts and REITs based on into which sector 50% or more of its assets (market value) or net lettable areas that fall. Business Trusts and REITs that are highly specialised and cannot be grouped with any other trusts are classified as Others (please refer to Annex C for the detailed classification of industry sectors). See Table 7 for a breakdown of the sector classification of the 43 Business Trusts and REITs.

In general, Business Trusts and REITs demonstrate strong adherence to corporate governance principles across all sectors. Figure 17 shows that, compared with SGTI results in 2017, all seven sectors saw encouraging improvement in their corporate governance disclosures and practices. Among the seven sectors, the Retail sector continued to outperform the other sectors with the highest average score of 83.4 and a substantial increased rate of 23.9%. The Healthcare sector, which is the second fastest growing sector in terms of corporate governance disclosures and practices, remains one of the lowest performing sectors.

Table 7: Number of Business Trusts and REITs by Sector

Figure 17: Business Trusts and REITs Average Score by Sector

Healthcare Hospitality Industrial

10

0

20

30

40

50

Logistics Office

2017

2018

40.9 60.0 67.3 79.0 61.9 73.2 47.5 59.3 65.9 78.6

60

70

80

90

Retail

67.3 83.4

Others

48.1 71.9

Healthcare

Hospitality

Industrial

Logistics

Office

SECTOR NUMBER OF BUSINESS TRUSTS AND REITs

3

6

9

5

8

9

3

43TOTAL

Retail

Others

27


STRUCTURE

In the case of Business Trusts and REITs, unitholders invest in a Business Trust or REIT, while the trustee maintains full legal ownership of trust’s assets. Within Business Trusts, the trustee holds and manages the assets, thus earning the moniker trustee-manager. In REITs, on the other hand, a trustee holds onto the assets but manages them through a separate entity known as the REIT manager. Due to this unique structural feature, proper measures must be in place to prevent potential conflicts of interest. Established procedures to appoint and remove trust managers or trustee managers is essential to good corporate governance.

However, the most recent SGTI data reveals that, among the 43 Business Trusts and REITs assessed, just 18.6% disclosed the rationale for the appointment of a trust / trustee manager, a slight improvement of 1.9% compared

to 2017. As the selection and removal of trust / trustee manager ensures accountability and reduces entrenchment risks, Business Trusts and REITs should work harder on disclosures on these matters for better transparency.

Figure 18: Structure of Business Trusts and REITs

18.6%16.7%

Rationale for appointment of trust manager / trustee manager

2017

2018

16.0%

15.5%

16.5%

17.0%

17.5%

18.0%

18.5%

19.0%

28


LEVERAGE

In July 2015, the Monetary Authority of Singapore changed its gearing policy regarding REITs such that all REITs have a single gearing limit of 45% of the REIT’s total assets, which is a measure of amount of debt the entity has to raise capital to pay off and sustain its liquidity and operations. This limit of 45% is a revision from the two-tier gearing limit of 60% for REITs with credit ratings and 35% for those without ratings. In contrast, Business Trusts are also required to control their own gearing and disclose the ratios and policies to provide disclosures and a source of information to key stakeholders.

One important component of leverage in Business Trusts and REITs is the benchmark of targeting a 15% gearing ratio per year of weighted average debt maturity. Results

show that Business Trusts and REITs’ performance remained stable in terms of maintaining a balanced gearing-to-debt maturity ratio (see Figure 19).

Figure 19: Leverage of Business Trusts and REITs

51.2%54.8%

Balanced gearing-to-debt maturity ratio

2017

2018

20.0%

0.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

29


INTERESTED PERSON TRANSACTIONS

The sponsor-centric business model of Business Trusts and REITs and the generally illiquid nature of transactions they enter warrant special emphasis regarding the legitimacy of IPTs.

Material IPTs are defined as valued above $100,000 and greater than or equal 5% net tangible assets (NTA), per SGX listing rules.

Among the 43 Business Trusts and REITs assessed this year, 83.7% confirmed that IPTs are on normal commercial terms

and not prejudicial to the interests of participants. Last year, 64.3% provided this confirmation, indicative that Business Trusts and REITs are progressing well in managing their IPT disclosures (see Figure 20).

Figure 20: Interested Person Transactions of Business Trusts and REITs

83.7%64.3%

Confirmation that IPTs are on normal commercial terms

20.0%

0.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2017

2018

30


COMPETENCIES OF TRUST/TRUSTEE MANAGERS

Trustee-managers of Business Trusts and trust managers of REITs have the responsibility of setting the overall strategy for the entity. Some essential decisions they must make include the acquisition and divestment of properties. With trustee-managers handling this important role, it is of utmost importance that they are well-equipped with the essential skills and experience.

Results suggest that the trust / trustee managers are generally well-equipped with the right crew to assume important responsibilities. In both 2017 and 2018, about

80% of Business Trusts and REITs have a minimum of three full-time representatives (including CEOs) with at least five years of relevant experience (see Figure 21).

Figure 21: Competencies of Trust/Trustee Managers of REITs and Business Trusts

76.7%78.6%

At least 3 full-time representatives with 5 years of relevant experience

20.0%

0.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

2017

2018

31


EMOLUMENTS

Business Trusts and REITs have maintained a high level of transparency in terms of disclosures on emoluments. 93.0% of Business Trusts and REITs disclosed the base fee for trust / trustee manager. Additionally, 88.4% revealed that they based trust / trustee manager performance fees on net property income or distribution-related metrics. 90.7% of Business Trusts and REITs assessed had a distribution policy in place. Even though Business Trusts are not legally required to have a distribution policy, ten out of the 13 Business Trusts assessed this year disclosed their distribution policies, an increase over last year (see Figure 22).

Figure 22: Emoluments of Business Trusts and REITs

92.9%

Base fees disclosed

2017

2018

20.0%

0.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%93.0% 81.0%

Performance fees based on net property income or

distribution-related metrics

88.4%88.1%

Distribution policy in place

90.7%

32


MOVING FORWARDThe release of the SGTI 2018 results coincided with the monumental release of the new Code of Corporate Governance. The new Code indicates an improvement in regulatory standards in order to assure strong corporate governance within organisations. Among other key changes, the new Code covers a new principle regarding stakeholder engagement that encourages companies to implement sustainability reporting. This is consistent with SGTI 2018 results to encourage more improvement in stakeholder engagement.

During the release of SGTI 2018, the need to focus on the improvement of stakeholder engagement scores, board independence and director tenure was reinforced.

SGTI results show that the proportion of independent directors and average director tenures on boards have an inverse correlation in organisations. Further, companies with a greater proportion of independent directors on boards have better stakeholder engagement scores. Therefore, by focusing on improving of board independence and director tenure, companies can increase their level of stakeholder engagement.

With concerted and collective effort, the field of corporate governance disclosures and practices must continue to become stronger for Singapore-listed companies.

33


ANNEXES

34


ANNEX A - GENERAL CATEGORY FULL RANKING TABLE

Rank 2018

Company Name Base Score

Adjustments for Bonuses/

Penalties

Overall SGTI 2018 Score


Rank 2017

1SINGAPORE TELECOMMUNICATIONS 94 35 129 124 1

2 DBS GROUP HLDGS 89 35 124 117 3

3 CAPITALAND 93 25 118 118 2

3 SINGAPORE EXCHANGE 95 23 118 117 3

5 SATS 93 21 114 100 11

6 SEMBCORP INDUSTRIES 92 21 113 110 6

7 CITY DEVELOPMENTS 88 22 110 105 8

8 UNITED OVERSEAS BANK 90 19 109 100 11

9OVERSEA-CHINESE BANKING CORP 86 22 108 104 9

9 SINGAPORE PRESS HLDGS 89 19 108 99 13

11 GLOBAL LOGISTIC PROPERTIES 87 20 107 104 9

12 TUAN SING HLDGS 85 21 106 109 7

13 DEL MONTE PACIFIC 88 14 102 95 16

13 OLAM INTERNATIONAL 84 18 102 98 15

15PERENNIAL REAL ESTATE HLDGS 86 15 101 92 19

15SINGAPORE TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING 81 20 101 79 43

17 COMFORTDELGRO CORP 84 16 100 89 25

17 GLOBAL INVESTMENTS 77 23 100 82 38

17 STARHUB 84 16 100 94 18

17 VICOM 77 23 100 95 16

21 SINGAPORE AIRLINES 82 16 98 88 28

21 YOMA STRATEGIC HLDGS 86 12 98 91 21

23 KEPPEL T&T 83 14 97 91 21

35


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

23 MICRO-MECHANICS HLDGS 79 18 97 92 19

25 GREAT EASTERN HLDGS 82 14 96 99 13

26SING INVESTMENTS & FINANCE 80 12 92 91 21

27 HONG LEONG ASIA 85 6 91 70 70

27 QIAN HU CORP 83 8 91 90 24

29 FRASERS CENTREPOINT 81 9 90 85 35

30 HAW PAR CORP 79 10 89 66 88

30 WILMAR INTERNATIONAL 81 8 89 89 25

32 SIA ENGINEERING CO 82 6 88 87 31

32 SINGAPORE POST 73 15 88 48 346

34 BANYAN TREE HLDGS 83 4 87 88 28

35 DYNAMIC COLOURS 74 12 86 82 38

35 GEO ENERGY RESOURCES 72 14 86 61 151

35 M1 84 2 86 86 32

38 HONG LEONG FINANCE 75 10 85 81 41

38 JAPAN FOODS HLDG 76 9 85 79 43

40 HO BEE LAND 80 4 84 59 178

40 SBS TRANSIT 71 13 84 86 32

40 WHEELOCK PROPERTIES (S) 74 10 84 86 32

43 FRASER AND NEAVE 69 14 83 73 61

43 GUOCOLAND 76 7 83 46 375

43 KEPPEL CORP 87 -4 83 113 5

46 ASL MARINE HLDGS 85 -3 82 64 111

46 CHINA AVIATION OIL (S) CORP 74 8 82 89 25

46 FAR EAST ORCHARD 76 6 82 57 209

46 INDOFOOD AGRI RESOURCES 72 10 82 83 37

46 MIYOSHI 70 12 82 60 164

36


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

46 SEMBCORP MARINE 83 -1 82 85 35

46 TEE INTERNATIONAL 77 5 82 73 61

46 THE TRENDLINES GROUP 74 8 82 66 88

54 BAKER TECHNOLOGY 72 9 81 81 41

54 FIRST RESOURCES 76 5 81 73 61

54 KODA 72 9 81 66 88

57 GRAND BANKS YACHTS 73 7 80 70 70

57 HG METAL MANUFACTURING 60 20 80 46 375

57 JARDINE CYCLE & CARRIAGE 74 6 80 66 88

60 SILVERLAKE AXIS 79 0 79 51 295

60 TEE LAND 71 8 79 77 49

60 VENTURE CORP 72 7 79 88 28

60 WILLAS-ARRAY ELEC (HLDGS) 68 11 79 55 242

64 CENTURION GROUP 73 5 78 75 51

64 UOL GROUP 68 10 78 79 43

64 YEO HIAP SENG 70 8 78 67 83

67 AVI-TECH ELECTRONICS 70 7 77 64 111

67 AXCELASIA INC 71 6 77 62 139

67 FRENCKEN GROUP 69 8 77 59 178

67 LHN 76 1 77 63 124

67 MDR 70 7 77 55 242

67 MTQ CORP 73 4 77 74 56

67 RIVERSTONE HLDGS 67 10 77 74 56

67 SINGAPORE O&G 74 3 77 82 38

67SOILBUILD CONSTRUCTION GROUP 71 6 77 75 51

67UNITED OVERSEAS INSURANCE 66 11 77 52 279

77 SAMUDERA SHIPPING LINE 67 9 76 63 124

37


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

78 ASTAKA HLDGS 71 4 75 49 324

78 COURTS ASIA 71 4 75 65 100

78 IFAST CORP 75 0 75 73 61

78 MEGACHEM 69 6 75 74 56

78 TEHO INTERNATIONAL INC 72 3 75 58 193

83 ECOWISE HLDGS 64 10 74 59 178

83 FU YU CORP 64 10 74 61 151

83 GENTING SINGAPORE PLC 58 16 74 33 533

83 INTRACO 72 2 74 51 295

83 METRO HLDGS 63 11 74 56 219

83 TA CORP 65 9 74 66 88

83 TAI SIN ELECTRIC 68 6 74 57 209

90 CWX GLOBAL 63 10 73 56 219

90 GL 64 9 73 55 242

90 HONG FOK CORP 64 9 73 54 256

90 SINGAPORE EDEVELOPMENT 68 5 73 62 139

90 SINGAPURA FINANCE 67 6 73 62 139

95 CH OFFSHORE 66 6 72 59 178

95 ES GROUP (HLDGS) 67 5 72 65 100

95 ISOTEAM 70 2 72 61 151

95 RAFFLES UNITED HLDGS 63 9 72 60 164

95 ROXY-PACIFIC HLDGS 84 -12 72 56 219

100ANCHUN INTERNATIONAL HLDGS 62 9 71 44 408

100 ASIA ENTERPRISES HLDG 65 6 71 50 309

100 ASIAPHOS 71 0 71 71 68

100 BREADTALK GROUP 65 6 71 73 61

100 EUROSPORTS GLOBAL 76 -5 71 59 178

38


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

100 HL GLOBAL ENTERPRISES 59 12 71 60 164

100 KARIN TECHNOLOGY HLDGS 65 6 71 55 242

100 OVERSEAS EDUCATION 62 9 71 69 73

100 TELECHOICE INTERNATIONAL 69 2 71 75 51

100 UNITED ENGINEERS 63 8 71 75 51

110 3CNERGY 59 11 70 59 178

110 CITYNEON HLDGS 68 2 70 51 295

110 CSE GLOBAL 64 6 70 44 408

110 DISA 61 9 70 65 100

110 HAFARY HLDGS 71 -1 70 52 279

110 ISEC HEALTHCARE 69 1 70 66 88

110 ISETAN (S) 63 7 70 66 88

110 NERA TELECOMMUNICATIONS 62 8 70 55 242

110 SINGHAIYI GROUP 63 7 70 33 533

119 AEM HLDGS 61 8 69 64 111

119 BOLDTEK HLDGS 64 5 69 56 219

119HEALTH MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL 76 -7 69 43 425

119 HIAP HOE 64 5 69 48 346

119 JUMBO GROUP 65 4 69 64 111

119 LUM CHANG HLDGS 63 6 69 52 279

119 REX INTERNATIONAL HLDG 75 -6 69 75 51

119 SP CORP 71 -2 69 73 61

119 STARLAND HLDGS 63 6 69 53 264

119 TLV HLDGS 68 1 69 - NA

119 TMC EDUCATION CORP 65 4 69 47 356

130CHINA JINJIANG ENVIRONMENT HLDG CO 62 6 68 - NA

130CHINA KUNDA TECHNOLOGY HLDGS 67 1 68 50 309

39


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

130CHINA SUNSINE CHEMICAL HLDGS 78 -10 68 65 100

130 CIVMEC 64 4 68 52 279

130 CNMC GOLDMINE HLDGS 66 2 68 79 43

130 GOLDEN AGRI-RESOURCES 64 4 68 43 425

130 HALCYON AGRI CORP 72 -4 68 54 256

130 INNOTEK 65 3 68 49 324

130 MS HLDGS 70 -2 68 61 151

130 ROWSLEY 65 3 68 71 68

130 UNITED GLOBAL 64 4 68 - NA

141 800 SUPER HLDGS 59 8 67 59 178

141 ABR HLDGS 67 0 67 42 437

141 BUKIT SEMBAWANG ESTATES 61 6 67 65 100

141 COSMOSTEEL HLDGS 72 -5 67 72 67

141 METECH INTERNATIONAL 61 6 67 40 462

141 PCI 60 7 67 37 503

141 VALLIANZ HLDGS 59 8 67 65 100

141 XMH HLDGS 66 1 67 60 164

141 ZICO HLDGS INC 65 2 67 64 111

150 AF GLOBAL 60 6 66 43 425

150 AP OIL INTERNATIONAL 58 8 66 63 124

150 CHINA STAR FOOD GROUP 63 3 66 49 324

150 CHUAN HUP HLDGS 57 9 66 43 425

150 HEATEC JIETONG HLDGS 57 9 66 62 139

150 HOTEL ROYAL 65 1 66 74 56

150 NEO GROUP 64 2 66 63 124

150 OKP HLDGS 68 -2 66 69 73

150 RYOBI KISO HLDGS 56 10 66 50 309

40


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

150 STAMFORD TYRES CORP 67 -1 66 61 151

150 TIH 59 7 66 64 111

150 UG HEALTHCARE CORP 63 3 66 56 219

150 UNION STEEL HLDGS 63 3 66 66 88

150YANGZIJIANG SHIPBUILDING (HLDGS) 54 12 66 60 164

164 BOARDROOM 58 7 65 52 279

164 DELFI 68 -3 65 68 77

164 ELLIPSIZ 61 4 65 56 219

164 HOCK LIAN SENG HLDGS 61 4 65 66 88

164 JB FOODS 62 3 65 56 219

169 BOUSTEAD SINGAPORE 62 2 64 56 219

169 CDW HLDG 62 2 64 59 178

169 CHALLENGER TECHNOLOGIES 64 0 64 62 139

169DRAGON GROUP INTERNATIONAL 62 2 64 47 356

169 OCEAN SKY INTERNATIONAL 69 -5 64 49 324

169PACC OFFSHORE SERVICES HLDGS 64 0 64 68 77

169 TIONG SENG HLDGS 64 0 64 74 56

169 TRITECH GROUP 64 0 64 56 219

169 UMS HLDGS 54 10 64 65 100

169YING LI INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTATE 65 -1 64 67 83

179 BAN LEONG TECHNOLOGIES 63 0 63 58 193

179 CORTINA HLDGS 63 0 63 50 309

179 CWG INTERNATIONAL 68 -5 63 63 124

179 FAR EAST GROUP 63 0 63 59 178

179 IFS CAPITAL 60 3 63 53 264

179 LHT HLDGS 59 4 63 58 193

179 LIBRA GROUP 64 -1 63 63 124

41


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

179 MULTI-CHEM 60 3 63 58 193

179 SINGAPORE SHIPPING CORP 63 0 63 43 425

179 TAT HONG HLDGS 69 -6 63 50 309

179 THAI BEVERAGE PUBLIC CO 65 -2 63 45 388

179 THE HOUR GLASS 60 3 63 64 111

179TUNG LOK RESTAURANTS (2000) 60 3 63 55 242

179 UNITED INDUSTRIAL CORP 57 6 63 63 124

179 VIBRANT GROUP 60 3 63 42 437

194 ACMA 55 7 62 37 503

194ADVANCED SYSTEMS AUTOMATION 64 -2 62 60 164

194 CHEW’S GROUP 61 1 62 61 151

194 HIAP SENG ENGINEERING 67 -5 62 45 388

194 ISDN HLDGS 59 3 62 45 388

194 LIAN BENG GROUP 69 -7 62 48 346

194MAXI-CASH FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP 56 6 62 57 209

194 MUN SIONG ENGINEERING 64 -2 62 52 279

194NEW TOYO INTERNATIONAL HLDGS 62 0 62 58 193

194 OUE 56 6 62 64 111

194 OUHUA ENERGY HLDGS 63 -1 62 44 408

194 PS GROUP HLDGS 58 4 62 60 164

194 RAFFLES MEDICAL GROUP 52 10 62 56 219

194 TALKMED GROUP 68 -6 62 66 88

208 ABUNDANCE INTERNATIONAL 54 7 61 64 111

208ARION ENTERTAINMENT SINGAPORE 57 4 61 60 164

208 ASTI HLDGS 64 -3 61 57 209

208AVIC INTERNATIONAL MARITIME HLDGS 64 -3 61 67 83

208 GDS GLOBAL 60 1 61 55 242

42


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

208 HWA HONG CORP 55 6 61 65 100

208 JAPFA 58 3 61 64 111

208 MENCAST HLDGS 58 3 61 69 73

208 PAN-UNITED CORP 61 0 61 63 124

208 SECOND CHANCE PROPERTIES 62 -1 61 53 264

208 SIN GHEE HUAT CORP 63 -2 61 50 309

208SRI TRANG AGRO-INDUSTRY PCL 60 1 61 - NA

208 TRAVELITE HLDGS 58 3 61 38 488

208 WILTON RESOURCES CORP 60 1 61 46 375

222 AEI CORP 54 6 60 49 324

222 BBR HLDGS (S) 61 -1 60 68 77

222 CAPTII 53 7 60 58 193

222 CEI 58 2 60 31 549

222 GAYLIN HLDGS 67 -7 60 46 375

222 GLOBAL TESTING CORP 53 7 60 51 295

222 HI-P INTERNATIONAL 60 0 60 55 242

222 IEV HLDGS 56 4 60 55 242

222 IPS SECUREX HLDGS 61 -1 60 41 448

222 KSH HLDGS 68 -8 60 56 219

222LUZHOU BIO-CHEM TECHNOLOGY 56 4 60 53 264

222MERMAID MARITIME PUBLIC CO 64 -4 60 33 533

222 PROCURRI CORP 65 -5 60 - NA

222 STAMFORD LAND CORP 62 -2 60 53 264

222 T T J HLDGS 62 -2 60 58 193

222 UOB-KAY HIAN HLDGS 58 2 60 60 164

222 VERSALINK HLDGS 62 -2 60 49 324

239COMBINE WILL INTERNATIONAL HLDGS 61 -2 59 56 219

43


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

239 EXCELPOINT TECHNOLOGY 57 2 59 43 425

239 FABCHEM CHINA 65 -6 59 44 408

239 GKE CORP 64 -5 59 40 462

239GOLDEN ENERGY AND RESOURCES 59 0 59 58 193

239 GS HLDGS 56 3 59 - NA

239 HANWELL HLDGS 61 -2 59 67 83

239 IX BIOPHARMA 55 4 59 - NA

239 KEONG HONG HLDGS 64 -5 59 66 88

239 KING WAN CORP 61 -2 59 46 375

239 MSM INTERNATIONAL 54 5 59 59 178

239NAM LEE PRESSED METAL INDUSTRIES 65 -6 59 39 478

239 SINOSTAR PEC HLDGS 50 9 59 47 356

239 SYSMA HLDGS 61 -2 59 47 356

239 TRANSIT-MIXED CONCRETE 53 6 59 40 462

254 BOUSTEAD PROJECTS 52 6 58 - NA

254CHINA YUANBANG PROP HLDGS 64 -6 58 37 503

254 CHIP ENG SENG CORP 60 -2 58 61 151

254 CITIC ENVIROTECH 59 -1 58 43 425

254 CREATIVE TECHNOLOGY 61 -3 58 49 324

254 GRP 57 1 58 37 503

254 GSH CORP 51 7 58 49 324

254 INTERRA RESOURCES 62 -4 58 61 151

254 SECURA GROUP 51 7 58 - NA

254 SINARMAS LAND 60 -2 58 51 295

254 SINJIA LAND 58 0 58 40 462

254SPACKMAN ENTERTAINMENT GROUP 62 -4 58 57 209

254 UPP HLDGS 63 -5 58 60 164

44


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

2678TELECOM INTERNATIONAL HLDGS CO 56 1 57 56 219

267 ACCRELIST 62 -5 57 57 209

267 BH GLOBAL CORP 59 -2 57 56 219

267 BRC ASIA 54 3 57 42 437

267 CAPITAL WORLD 54 3 57 52 279

267 CHARISMA ENERGY SERVICES 50 7 57 57 209

267CHINA MINING INTERNATIONAL 58 -1 57 55 242

267 COGENT HLDGS 53 4 57 52 279

267 DELONG HLDGS 62 -5 57 45 388

267ELEC & ELTEK INTERNATIONAL CO 54 3 57 23 586

267 G. K. GOH HLDGS 62 -5 57 61 151

267 HUATIONG GLOBAL 58 -1 57 66 88

267 LEE METAL GROUP 51 6 57 49 324

267PACIFIC CENTURY REGIONAL DEVELOPMENTS 53 4 57 50 309

267 QT VASCULAR 58 -1 57 58 193

267 SUNNINGDALE TECH 54 3 57 46 375

267 SUTL ENTERPRISE 60 -3 57 45 388

284 GLOBAL INVACOM GROUP 52 4 56 62 139

284 GOODLAND GROUP 59 -3 56 40 462

284 JASON MARINE GROUP 56 0 56 63 124

284 KENCANA AGRI 50 6 56 62 139

284 KHONG GUAN 57 -1 56 41 448

284 LEY CHOON GROUP HLDGS 66 -10 56 44 408

284 PARKSON RETAIL ASIA 70 -14 56 45 388

284 SUNVIC CHEMICAL HLDGS 62 -6 56 6 602

292 AMARA HLDGS 59 -4 55 41 448

292 ASIAMEDIC 55 0 55 46 375

45


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

292BEST WORLDINTERNATIONAL 64 -9 55 65 100

292 CHINA EVERBRIGHT WATER 70 -15 55 49 324

292 FORISE INTERNATIONAL 57 -2 55 53 264

292GLOBAL PALM RESOURCES HLDGS 57 -2 55 58 193

292 MEGHMANI ORGANICS 71 -16 55 - NA

292 QAF 60 -5 55 51 295

292 SHS HLDGS 57 -2 55 47 356

292 SIIC ENVIRONMENT HLDGS 52 3 55 56 219

292 STAR PHARMACEUTICAL 53 2 55 51 295

292 TECKWAH INDUSTRIAL CORP 55 0 55 54 256

292 WONG FONG INDUSTRIES 57 -2 55 - NA

305 ACROMEC 56 -2 54 - NA

305 ASPIAL CORP 55 -1 54 52 279

305 CPH 49 5 54 45 388

305 KINGSMEN CREATIVES 53 1 54 56 219

305 MEWAH INTERNATIONAL INC 50 4 54 65 100

305 MM2 ASIA 53 1 54 38 488

305NET PACIFIC FINANCIAL HLDGS 49 5 54 56 219

305 NIPPECRAFT 61 -7 54 51 295

305 P5 CAPITAL HLDGS 56 -2 54 33 533

305 SAPPHIRE CORP 55 -1 54 64 111

305SINGAPORE KITCHEN EQUIPMENT 57 -3 54 49 324

305 SOO KEE GROUP 56 -2 54 61 151

305 STARBURST HLDGS 56 -2 54 64 111

305 TOP GLOBAL 54 0 54 68 77

305 YANLORD LAND GROUP 54 0 54 58 193

320 ADVANCED HLDGS 48 5 53 43 425

46


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

320 ADVANCER GLOBAL 52 1 53 - NA

320 A-SONIC AEROSPACE 50 3 53 47 356

320 AZEUS SYSTEMS HLDGS 53 0 53 45 388

320 BONVESTS HLDGS 59 -6 53 49 324

320BRITISH AND MALAYAN HLDGS 60 -7 53 62 139

320 BROOK CROMPTON HLDGS 55 -2 53 20 591

320 DUTY FREE INTERNATIONAL 47 6 53 54 256

320 EINDEC CORP 55 -2 53 - NA

320ENVICTUS INTERNATIONAL HLDGS 51 2 53 41 448

320 GREEN BUILD TECHNOLOGY 65 -12 53 27 576

320 KORI HLDGS 52 1 53 55 242

320 MOYA HLDGS ASIA 50 3 53 38 488

320 NGSC 61 -8 53 26 582

320 NTEGRATOR INTERNATIONAL 52 1 53 50 309

320 RAFFLES EDUCATION GROUP 58 -5 53 60 164

320 SEN YUE HLDGS 55 -2 53 42 437

320 SIN HENG HEAVY MACHINERY 46 7 53 48 346

320 SINGAPORE MEDICAL GROUP 47 6 53 64 111

320 THE STRAITS TRADING CO 49 4 53 50 309

320 UNI-ASIA GROUP 54 -1 53 68 77

341 BUMITAMA AGRI 59 -7 52 69 73

341 CFM HLDGS 50 2 52 48 346

341CHINESE GLOBAL INVESTORS GROUP 59 -7 52 49 324

341 DUTECH HLDGS 51 1 52 53 264

341 ENVIRO-HUB HLDGS 52 0 52 38 488

341 FIGTREE HLDGS 52 0 52 62 139

341 OLD CHANG KEE 60 -8 52 58 193

47


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

341 Q & M DENTAL GROUP (S) 62 -10 52 52 279

341SINGAPORE REINSURANCE CORP 53 -1 52 52 279

341 THAKRAL CORP 64 -12 52 68 77

341 THE PLACE HLDGS 61 -9 52 44 408

352 ADDVALUE TECHNOLOGIES 57 -6 51 38 488

352 ANCHOR RESOURCES 61 -10 51 - NA

352 JEP HLDGS 48 3 51 49 324

352KIM HENG OFFSHORE & MARINE HLDGS 60 -9 51 62 139

352 S I2I 52 -1 51 47 356

352 SHENG SIONG GROUP 57 -6 51 62 139

352 SINWA 59 -8 51 51 295

352TIANJIN ZHONG XIN PHARM GROUP CORP 46 5 51 47 356

352 VICPLAS INTERNATIONAL 54 -3 51 42 437

352VIKING OFFSHORE AND MARINE 58 -7 51 58 193

352 WEE HUR HLDGS 57 -6 51 56 219

363 ASIATIC GROUP (HLDGS) 49 1 50 58 193

363 COLEX HLDGS 51 -1 50 53 264

363 DESIGN STUDIO GROUP 54 -4 50 53 264

363 FUXING CHINA GROUP 55 -5 50 49 324

363 HAI LECK HLDGS 52 -2 50 59 178

363 JACKSPEED CORP 49 1 50 44 408

363 LION ASIAPAC 47 3 50 35 519

363MANUFACTURING INTEGRATION TECHNOLOGY 53 -3 50 65 100

363MEDTECS INTERNATIONAL CORP 56 -6 50 57 209

363 MMP RESOURCES 62 -12 50 42 437

363 ROTARY ENGINEERING 50 0 50 52 279

363 SING HLDGS 54 -4 50 50 309

48


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

363 SOUP RESTAURANT GROUP 58 -8 50 46 375

363 SPINDEX INDUSTRIES 49 1 50 53 264

363 SUNMOON FOOD CO 57 -7 50 40 462

363 TAT SENG PACKAGING GROUP 48 2 50 63 124

363 YINDA INFOCOMM 53 -3 50 42 437

380 AMPLEFIELD 64 -15 49 32 542

380 BUND CENTER INVESTMENT 47 2 49 26 582

380 CHASEN HLDGS 58 -9 49 32 542

380 DECLOUT 73 -24 49 59 178

380 F J BENJAMIN HLDGS 50 -1 49 45 388

380 GSS ENERGY 52 -3 49 38 488

380INTERNATIONAL PRESS SOFTCOM 51 -2 49 40 462

380 IPC CORP 40 9 49 49 324

380 KATRINA GROUP 54 -5 49 - NA

380 KRISENERGY 52 -3 49 63 124

380 MAGNUS ENERGY GROUP 48 1 49 23 586

380METAL COMPONENT ENGINEERING 51 -2 49 39 478

380 OXLEY HLDGS 59 -10 49 41 448

380 SERIAL SYSTEM 59 -10 49 30 558

380SINO GRANDNESS FOOD INDUSTRY GROUP 53 -4 49 67 83

380 WING TAI HLDGS 57 -8 49 50 309

396 ALLIANCE MINERAL ASSETS 60 -12 48 47 356

396 CORDLIFE GROUP 73 -25 48 40 462

396 DUKANG DISTILLERS HLDGS 50 -2 48 36 513

396 EDITION 48 0 48 50 309

396 FRAGRANCE GROUP 54 -6 48 23 586

396 GP INDUSTRIES 58 -10 48 38 488

49


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

396 HOSEN GROUP 54 -6 48 56 219

396JOYAS INTERNATIONAL HLDGS 54 -6 48 45 388

396LASSETERS INTERNATIONAL HLDGS 48 0 48 54 256

396 LIFEBRANDZ 48 0 48 30 558

396 LTC CORP 51 -3 48 38 488

396 MATEX INTERNATIONAL 55 -7 48 48 346

396 VASHION GROUP 46 2 48 60 164

396 YONGNAM HLDGS 54 -6 48 47 356

410 ANAN INTERNATIONAL 58 -11 47 47 356

410 ASIAN MICRO HLDGS 53 -6 47 38 488

410 DYNA-MAC HLDGS 55 -8 47 55 242

410 EPICENTRE HLDGS 56 -9 47 48 346

410 FIRST SPONSOR GROUP 50 -3 47 35 519

410 FOOD EMPIRE HLDGS 46 1 47 50 309

410 MYP 50 -3 47 46 375

410 NICO STEEL HLDGS 55 -8 47 40 462

410 OLS ENTERPRISE 59 -12 47 39 478

410 SEROJA INVESTMENTS 48 -1 47 30 558

410 STRACO CORP 59 -12 47 40 462

410 SUNPOWER GROUP 58 -11 47 54 256

410 VALUETRONICS HLDGS 58 -11 47 55 242

410 YONGMAO HLDGS 55 -8 47 44 408

424 ALLIED TECHNOLOGIES 63 -17 46 35 519

424ASIA-PACIFIC STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS 55 -9 46 34 527

424ATLANTIC NAVIGATION HLDGS (S) 50 -4 46 56 219

424BLACKGOLD NATURAL RESOURCES 59 -13 46 29 564

424FEDERAL INTERNATIONAL (2000) 52 -6 46 46 375

50


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

424 GCCP RESOURCES 55 -9 46 39 478

424 HEETON HLDGS 48 -2 46 33 533

424 HOTEL GRAND CENTRAL 62 -16 46 40 462

424 HUPSTEEL 46 0 46 48 346

424 KOP 69 -23 46 51 295

424 LERENO BIO-CHEM 46 0 46 41 448

424MONEYMAX FINANCIAL SERVICES 57 -11 46 58 193

424 NORDIC GROUP 65 -19 46 60 164

424SITRA HLDGS (INTERNATIONAL) 54 -8 46 52 279

424 SMJ INTERNATIONAL HLDGS 46 0 46 52 279

439 ALPHA ENERGY HLDGS 55 -10 45 56 219

439CHINA INTERNATIONAL HLDGS 40 5 45 43 425

439CHINA MEDICAL (INTERNATIONAL) GROUP 52 -7 45 56 219

439 HOTUNG INVESTMENT HLDGS 45 0 45 54 256

439 NAUTICAWT 53 -8 45 63 124

439 OKH GLOBAL 64 -19 45 29 564

439 OLIVE TREE ESTATES 44 1 45 - NA

439 PACIFIC STAR DEVELOPMENT 45 0 45 45 388

439 TIONG WOON CORP HLDG 53 -8 45 41 448

439 VARD HLDGS 67 -22 45 70 70

449 ANNAIK 46 -2 44 52 279

449 BENG KUANG MARINE 49 -5 44 45 388

449CHINA GAOXIAN FIBRE FABRIC HLDGS 41 3 44 37 503

449 HIAP TONG CORP 46 -2 44 43 425

449 PENGUIN INTERNATIONAL 39 5 44 40 462

449 TYE SOON 40 4 44 45 388

449 WEIYE HLDGS 45 -1 44 44 408

51


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

456 ANNICA HLDGS 52 -9 43 37 503

456 C&G ENV PROTECT HLDGS 44 -1 43 53 264

456DARCO WATER TECHNOLOGIES 56 -13 43 34 527

456 HOR KEW CORP 42 1 43 40 462

456 JUBILEE INDUSTRIES HLDGS 57 -14 43 55 242

456 KOH BROTHERS GROUP 46 -3 43 32 542

456 SANTAK HLDGS 49 -6 43 39 478

456SOUTHERN PACKAGING GROUP 49 -6 43 41 448

456 USP GROUP 55 -12 43 34 527

465 ACE ACHIEVE INFOCOM 55 -13 42 31 549

465 CHINA JISHAN HLDGS 54 -12 42 41 448

465 KITCHEN CULTURE HLDGS 63 -21 42 35 519

465 LIONGOLD CORP 68 -26 42 22 589

465 NEW WAVE HLDGS 42 0 42 41 448

465 PAN HONG HLDGS GROUP 47 -5 42 47 356

465 PLASTOFORM HLDGS 43 -1 42 46 375

465 SARINE TECHNOLOGIES 59 -17 42 47 356

465SINGAPORE MYANMAR INVESTCO 51 -9 42 41 448

465 SOON LIAN HLDGS 53 -11 42 36 513

465 TSH CORP 45 -3 42 57 209

465 YHI INTERNATIONAL 50 -8 42 57 209

465 ZHONGXIN FRUIT AND JUICE 56 -14 42 43 425

478 ARTIVISION TECHNOLOGIES 66 -25 41 53 264

478 CAMSING HEALTHCARE 50 -9 41 32 542

478CHASWOOD RESOURCES HLDGS 55 -14 41 44 408

478 CHINA HAIDA 49 -8 41 44 408

478KOH BROTHERS ECO ENGINEERING 43 -2 41 34 527

52


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

478LEADER ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES 48 -7 41 40 462

478 NUTRYFARM INTERNATIONAL 46 -5 41 40 462

478 PACIFIC RADIANCE 61 -20 41 39 478

478 SINCAP GROUP 55 -14 41 31 549

478 UNITED FOOD HLDGS 54 -13 41 35 519

488 AGV GROUP 48 -8 40 - NA

488CHEUNG WOH TECHNOLOGIES 47 -7 40 47 356

488 CHOO CHIANG HLDGS 56 -16 40 44 408

488 MEMTECH INTERNATIONAL 40 0 40 33 533

488 PEC 55 -15 40 63 124

488 PROGEN HLDGS 45 -5 40 50 309

488 RH PETROGAS 54 -14 40 31 549

495 COMPACT METAL INDUSTRIES 48 -9 39 37 503

495 PNE INDUSTRIES 38 1 39 28 569

495WORLD PRECISION MACHINERY 50 -11 39 32 542

498 CSC HLDGS 44 -6 38 48 346

498 HYFLUX 57 -19 38 63 124

498 KOYO INTERNATIONAL 47 -9 38 29 564

498 NOEL GIFTS INTERNATIONAL 43 -5 38 28 569

498 TRANSCORP HOLDINGS 46 -8 38 35 519

498 VALUEMAX GROUP 48 -10 38 60 164

498 VIBROPOWER CORP 47 -9 38 61 151

505 AA GROUP HLDGS 46 -9 37 31 549

505 ACESIAN PARTNERS 47 -10 37 51 295

505BROADWAY INDUSTRIAL GROUP 50 -13 37 36 513

505 INFINIO GROUP 37 0 37 18 595

505 INNOPAC HLDGS 45 -8 37 27 576

53


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

505 JIUTIAN CHEMICAL GROUP 48 -11 37 38 488

505 MIRACH ENERGY 45 -8 37 34 527

505 OUE LIPPO HEALTHCARE 53 -16 37 5 603

505 RAMBA ENERGY 53 -16 37 61 151

505 SINOCLOUD GROUP 51 -14 37 38 488

505 SUNRIGHT 45 -8 37 31 549

516DEBAO PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT 39 -3 36 33 533

516 INFORMATICS EDUCATION 34 2 36 49 324

516 JASPER INVESTMENTS 46 -10 36 31 549

516 LAFE CORP 41 -5 36 26 582

516 PLATO CAPITAL 37 -1 36 47 356

516 PSL HLDGS 59 -23 36 38 488

522CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES (FAR EAST) 42 -7 35 17 597

522 ENGRO CORP 53 -18 35 44 408

522 GALLANT VENTURE 51 -16 35 54 256

522 GLOBAL YELLOW PAGES 41 -6 35 45 388

522 HUAN HSIN HLDGS 50 -15 35 27 576

522 JADASON ENTERPRISES 41 -6 35 45 388

522 LUXKING GROUP HLDGS 45 -10 35 44 408

522 MANHATTAN RESOURCES 46 -11 35 47 356

522 MERCURIUS CAP INVESTMENT 47 -12 35 37 503

522 POWERMATIC DATA SYSTEMS 40 -5 35 46 375

532 ASIATRAVEL.COM HLDGS 41 -7 34 39 478

532 HATTEN LAND 51 -17 34 18 595

532 HOTEL PROPERTIES 43 -9 34 42 437

532 LOW KENG HUAT (S) 42 -8 34 44 408

532 PAN ASIAN HLDGS 43 -9 34 51 295

54


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

532 PHARMESIS INTERNATIONAL 43 -9 34 49 324

532 SMARTFLEX HLDGS 42 -8 34 39 478

539 LCT HLDGS 39 -6 33 47 356

539REGAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP 47 -14 33 59 178

539 SAMKO TIMBER 47 -14 33 42 437

539 SUNTAR ECO-CITY 40 -7 33 35 519

539 ZIWO HLDGS 46 -13 33 27 576

544 ASIA FASHION HLDGS 54 -22 32 28 569

544FUJI OFFSET PLATES MANUFACTURING 40 -8 32 35 519

544 HEALTHWAY MEDICAL CORP 58 -26 32 49 324

547 ADVENTUS HLDGS 43 -12 31 53 264

547 A-SMART HLDGS 48 -17 31 37 503

549KINGBOARD COPPER FOIL HLDGS 32 -2 30 44 408

549 SAN TEH 48 -18 30 27 576

551 BLUMONT GROUP 60 -31 29 29 564

551 CASA HLDGS 39 -10 29 27 576

551 ISR CAPITAL 53 -24 29 - NA

551 PAVILLON HLDGS 40 -11 29 29 564

551 SUNRISE SHARES HLDGS 38 -9 29 47 356

556CHINA TAISAN TECH GROUP HLDGS 54 -26 28 39 478

556 HOE LEONG CORP 57 -29 28 41 448

556 ICP 37 -9 28 28 569

556 OCEANUS GROUP 53 -25 28 12 599

560HENGYANG PETROCHEMICAL LOGISTICS 56 -29 27 28 569

560 OEL (HLDGS) 46 -19 27 45 388

562 CHINA GREAT LAND HLDGS 49 -23 26 31 549

562 IPCO INTERNATIONAL 57 -31 26 38 488

55


Rank 2018



Penalties



Rank 2017

562 OSSIA INTERNATIONAL 42 -16 26 32 542

562 POLLUX PROPERTIES 61 -35 26 53 264

562 SHINVEST HLDG 41 -15 26 28 569

567 AUSGROUP 54 -29 25 38 488

567 POLARIS 49 -24 25 28 569

569 DATAPULSE TECHNOLOGY 47 -23 24 49 324

570 NSL 42 -19 23 42 437

570ZHONGMIN BAIHUI RETAIL GROUP 45 -22 23 30 558

572 KTL GLOBAL 47 -26 21 43 425

572 LORENZO INTERNATIONAL 57 -36 21 45 388

574 FALCON ENERGY GROUP 54 -34 20 45 388

574 IMPERIUM CROWN 63 -43 20 56 219

576 HLH GROUP 35 -16 19 20 591

576 SAKAE HLDGS 39 -20 19 31 549

576 SBI OFFSHORE 58 -39 19 36 513

576SHANGHAI TURBO ENTERPRISES 59 -40 19 62 139

580 SWEE HONG 65 -47 18 2 606

581 NATURAL COOL HLDGS 62 -46 16 36 513

582 KLW HLDGS 61 -51 10 7 601

582 KS ENERGY 64 -54 10 32 542

584 MIDAS HLDGS 49 -40 9 49 324

585 NOBLE GROUP 44 -36 8 30 558

586 FULL APEX (HLDGS) 30 -23 7 21 590

587 TREK 2000 INTERNATIONAL 52 -57 -5 - NA

588 ABTERRA 48 -54 -6 5 603

589 YUUZOO CORP 36 -48 -12 5 603

56


ANNEX B - BUSINESS TRUST AND REIT CATEGORY FULL RANKING TABLE

Rank 2018

Trust Name Base Score*


Penalties



Rank 2017

1 CAPITALAND MALL TRUST 84.1 18 102.1 96.8 1

2CAPITALAND COMMERCIAL TRUST 77.7 18 95.7 95.3 2

3 ASCOTT RESIDENCE TRUST 74.9 14 88.9 76.3 6

4 KEPPEL REIT 76.5 12 88.5 93.3 3

5 ASCENDAS REIT 77.7 9 86.7 73.2 7

5 CDL HOSPITALITY TRUSTS 70.7 16 86.7 69.9 10

5 KEPPEL DC REIT 74.7 12 86.7 82.6 5

8 STARHILL GLOBAL REIT 70.7 15 85.7 70.6 9

9CAPITALAND RETAIL CHINA TRUST 73.9 11 84.9 88.7 4

10 BHG RETAIL REIT 74.5 10 84.5 - NA

11 IREIT GLOBAL 72.3 12 84.3 65.3 14

12 FRASERS COMMERCIAL TRUST 68.5 15 83.5 69.3 12

13 SPH REIT 69.2 14 83.2 71.7 8

14MAPLETREE COMMERCIAL TRUST 72.8 9 81.8 69.7 11

15 FRASERS CENTREPOINT TRUST 65.6 16 81.6 64.2 18

15 MAPLETREE LOGISTICS TRUST 69.6 12 81.6 60.4 22

17FRASERS LOGISTICS & INDUSTRIAL TRUST 66.9 14 80.9 - NA

18 ESR-REIT 71.8 9 80.8 58.2 28

18KEPPEL INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST 65.8 15 80.8 59.9 24

20 FRASERS HOSPITALITY TRUST 69.6 11 80.6 65.9 13

21 OUE HOSPITALITY TRUST 65.3 15 80.3 64.1 19

22MAPLETREE GREATER CHINA COMMERCIAL TRUST 69.0 9 78.0 58.9 27

23MAPLETREE INDUSTRIAL TRUST 70.5 7 77.5 64.1 19

57


Rank 2018

Trust Name Base Score*


Penalties



Rank 2017

24AIMS AMP CAPITAL INDUSTRIAL REIT

68.3 9 77.3 51.9 33

25 ASCENDAS INDIA TRUST 75.1 1 76.1 59.8 25

26 PARKWAY LIFE REIT 57.5 17 74.5 42.6 36

27SOILBUILD BUSINESS SPACE REIT 69.4 5 74.4 64.8 17

28 VIVA INDUSTRIAL TRUST 63.4 9 72.4 64.9 15

29ASCENDAS HOSPITALITY TRUST 61.5 9 70.5 64.9 15

30 CACHE LOGISTICS TRUST 63.3 7 70.3 54.4 32

31 OUE COMMERCIAL REIT 58.7 11 69.7 57.8 29

32 ACCORDIA GOLF TRUST 63.0 6 69.0 39.9 37

33 EC WORLD REIT 68.9 0 68.9 - NA

33LIPPO MALLS INDONESIA RETAIL TRUST 64.9 4 68.9 48.8 34

35 FAR EAST HOSPITALITY TRUST 67.7 -1 66.7 62.7 21

36 SUNTEC REIT 64.6 2 66.6 60.0 23

37 ASIAN PAY TELEVISION TRUST 55.9 10 65.9 54.9 31

38 MANULIFE US REIT 60.2 4 64.2 - NA

39 FIRST REIT 53.1 6 59.1 23.5 40

40HUTCHISON PORT HOLDINGS TRUST 44.1 4 48.1 59.1 26

41 RHT HEALTH TRUST 56.2 -10 46.2 56.5 30

42 FIRST SHIP LEASE TRUST 51.4 -24 27.4 15.9 42

43SABANA SHARI’AH COMPLIANT REIT 48.3 -26 22.3 35.9 39

*Base is the addition of SGTI Base Score and Trust-Specific Score

58


ANNEX C - CLASSIFICATION OF INDUSTRY SECTORS

Sector Definition

Healthcare Healthcare Business Trusts and REITs own and manage a range of healthcare related properties, which include senior living communities, hospitals, medical office buildings and skilled nursing facilities.

Hospitality Hospitality Business Trusts and REITs own and manage hotels and serviced apartments.

Industrial Industrial Business Trusts and REITs own and manage industrial facilities, which can include industrial business parks, data centres and factories. The buildings managed are usually engaged in manufacturing, engineering, electronics, marine and oil & gas.

LogisticsLogistic Business Trusts and REITs own and manage properties that include logistics hubs, storage warehouses, distribution centres, port infrastructure and ships.

Office Office Business Trusts and REITs typically manage properties located in a country’s central business district and tend to house tenants such as multinational companies, banks, financial companies, law firms and investment companies.

Retail Retail Business Trusts and REITs hold and manage properties such as shopping centres, malls, shopping arcades and other premises meant for retail activities.

Others Business Trusts and REITs that fall under the “others” category have highly specialised assets and so cannot be grouped with the others.

59


CREDITSSGTI Advisory Panel

We express our deepest gratitude to the members of the Advisory Panel for their continued guidance for the SGTI project. The Advisory Panel members are:

• Ms Rachel Eng, Managing Partner, Eng and Co. LLC • Mr Loh Hoon Sun, Senior Advisor, Phillip Securities Pte Ltd

• Mr Low Weng Keong, Past Global President and Chairman of the Board, CPA Australia

• Mr Chaly Mah, Chairman (Retired), Deloitte Singapore and Chairman, Singapore Accountancy Commission

• Mr Wong Wei Kong, Editor, The Business Times

Contributions

The CGIO’s colleagues, Ms Lee Shiau Ping, Ms Verity Thoi, and Ms Maureen Ho; and interns, Ms Guo Yuge, and Mr Teo Kah Yong are acknowledged for their roles in the project.

The efforts of all the staff at CPA Australia, led by Mr Melvin Yong, and the Singapore Institute of Directors, led by Ms Joyce Koh, are greatly appreciated.

Project Team

• Dr Lawrence Loh is Director, Centre for Governance, Institutions and Organisations as well as Deputy Head and Associate Professor of Strategy and Policy at NUS Business School, National University of Singapore.

• Ms Lou Junying, Senior Research Analyst, CGIO

• Mr Muhammad Ibrahim, Graduate Research Analyst, CGIO

• Mr Ace Chiu, Senior Research Associate, CGIO

corporate governance highlights 2018 · 2019-03-06 · corporate governance highlights 2018 is a...

Documents